Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.

So I'm sorry to inform you that children being implicit parties to the marriage contract has already been established quite recently, by the highest court in the nation.

For your debate it gets even worse. THE MAIN benefit children derived from the marriage contract previous to 2015 was BOTH a mother and father. Not a man with an asshole "playing female/mom"; nor a woman with a strapon dildo "playing male/dad". Children derived the real McCoy; for which there is no substitute.

Thousands of studies have been done that show children fall by the wayside compared to their peers (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) if they lack either a mother or father in their life. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but they are rare exceptions to that rule. We don't set standards based on rare exceptions; particularly when we as states subsidize THE MAIN benefit of marriage as a bet on a cheaper, more sane future citizenry. Of the many (unfortunate and expen$ive) maladies plaguing children without either a mother or father (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) are depression, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, indigency, prison terms and a general sense of not belonging (as found in the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, the largest of its kind)...particularly when the child missing a father is a boy and the child missing the mother is a girl.

So, Obegefell created contractual conditions as a binding force of law, that results in the DETRIMENT to children sharing that contract. Remember, your premise is that they do not share that contract "and therefore no contractual detriment was created at their expense". Given that Kennedy found there WAS contractual enjoyments children derive from marriage (making their share an implied one; which is equally as binding as expressed), your premise fails. And therefore, your conclusion "the Infants Doctrine doesn't apply to marriage contracts" is a false conclusion. It does apply. It applies to each and every single contract that children share either expressly, or implied.

Therefore, Obergefell was an illegal Ruling on that point. But it is also an illegal Ruling on many other points of which I've pointed out before. Those include Ginsburg (and Kagan) openly telling the world how they would vote on it months in advance; that Windsor said 56 times that the power to define marriage rests with the states; that no words about marriage are mentioned in the constitution at all because it is a state-granted privilege..evidenced by the fact that states can still deny other sexual orientations marriage...the misuse of the 14th to give only some but not other sexual orientations carte blanch for marriage...etc. etc.

Like I said, Judge Moore could just put on a blindfold and throw darts in any direction and he'd hit a bullseye. The hardest part of his defense would be which rock-solid defense to choose.

If my company signs a contract with a new vendor- even if I derive benefit from that contract- I am not party of the contract.

Implied or not.

Kennedy made the whole deal about "doing it for the kids". I think you know that your position is indefensible. Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly. So perhaps you're right, children no longer are implied parties to the marriage contract, they are expressed parties to the marriage contract.

Indeed Kennedy used the idea of children's benefits and share in marriage as an excuse to rewrite laws across the country with a stroke of his pen. So I stand corrected. Not just implied parties anymore; children are EXPRESSED parties to the marriage contract.

 

[mdk]

Kennedy made the whole deal about "doing it for the kids". I think you know that your position is indefensible. Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly. So perhaps you're right, children no longer are implied parties to the marriage contract, they are expressed parties to the marriage contract.

Indeed Kennedy used the idea of children's benefits and share in marriage as an excuse to rewrite laws across the country with a stroke of his pen. So I stand corrected. Not just implied parties anymore; children are EXPRESSED parties to the marriage contract.

Does this mean that Obergefell isn't an illegal ruling and not automatically void citing Ferber? It's so funny watching you attempt to keep your bullshit straight. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Kennedy made the whole deal about "doing it for the kids". I think you know that your position is indefensible. Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly. So perhaps you're right, children no longer are implied parties to the marriage contract, they are expressed parties to the marriage contract.

Indeed Kennedy used the idea of children's benefits and share in marriage as an excuse to rewrite laws across the country with a stroke of his pen. So I stand corrected. Not just implied parties anymore; children are EXPRESSED parties to the marriage contract.

Does this mean that Obergefell isn't an illegal ruling and not automatically void citing Ferber? It's so funny watching you attempt to keep your bullshit straight. lol

Well it is a Ruling and words can be extracted from a Ruling to undo it; if it fails the test of legal debate and logic.

Kennedy said in Obergefell that "we need to do this for the benefits kids need out of marriage!"; thus taking them from thousands of years of implicit enjoyment of the marriage contract to expressed and documented enjoyment from it.

Then literally in the next paragraph or so, he announces (without realizing his grave logical mistake) that the chief benefit they derived from marriage, that they had derived unquestionably for thousands of years; the presence and irreplaceable influence of BOTH a mother and father, IS NOW DEFUNCT! The "grave mistake" of course being that according to the Infants Doctrine; no contract a child enjoys and shares in may contain conditions that saddle him or her with a detriment. Gay marriage legally bifurcates children from either a mother or father FOR LIFE. Oopsies Justice Kennedy et al!

That mistake can be exposed and must be exposed for the sake of children. Children know that a man using his asshole as a vagina is not a mother. Children know that a woman using a dildo is not a father. Children are sophisticated enough and unmuddled enough to know the difference. Indeed they suffer the difference; now officially at the hands of Kennedy and company. In fact, children are keen enough to see hypocrisy and hidden issues when they slap them in the face. The fact that gay men and lesbians are trying to imitate heterosexuality (normal sex) will not escape their attention: even if it is PC not to say so among adults.

It is a mistake that must be undone. Even gay designers Dolce and Gabbana stood forward and declared there was no substitute for a mother and father like they both had...you know...before the Gaystapo got ahold of them and used fiscal pressure to force them to recant.

 

[Montrovant]

Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly.

I think you misunderstand the word expressly.

 

[mdk]

Kennedy said in Obergefell that "we need to do this for the benefits kids need out of marriage!"; thus taking them from thousands of years of implicit enjoyment of the marriage contract to expressed and documented enjoyment from it.

According to you, for thousands of years children have been implicit members of a marriage contract and yet you still can't find a single state that adheres to such a legal doctrine. Not one.

Your rambling claims about the Infancy Doctrine would make divorce proceedings void if a child protests to said divorce. It would also make marriage proceedings void if the child protests as well. Good thing that the Infancy Doctrine doesn't have any effect on contracts between two adults.

 

[mdk]

Ding bat has spent the last year claiming Obergefell is void b/c it didn't have children represented in the case, but now is claiming the ruling did and in fact explicitly enjoins children to the marriage contract of their parents. Too funny.

 

[Syriusly]

You could make that argument from an adult. But Kennedy said "This is for the kids". In so doing he enjoined them officially and expressly in the marriage contract.

Really? I think once again you are playing fast and furious with the facts

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

Nope- no mention of them as being part of the marriage contract- which would be what he had done if he had 'expressly' 'enjoined' them.

And since you brought up these children- why do you want to bring legal injury to these children?

 

[Syriusly]

Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly.

I think you misunderstand the word expressly.

We keep telling Wallace Shawn.....I mean Silhouette that....

 

[Silhouette]

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

OK, then it gets even worse for Kennedy's not thinking his words through. He has:

1. Established children derive benefits from the marriage contract and because of them, something needs to be done about it. Which is the exact same thing as saying "they have a share in the marriage contract".

2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Which reaffirms my point in #1 and the unfortunate fact that since marriage is a contract and he admits they are part of it in shares (implied & expressed now), THEY HAD NO REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR UNIQUE INTERESTS IN THE REVISION KENNEDY ET AL MADE AT THE HEARING FOR OBERGEFELL. No guardian ad litum was present to weigh in for them. Kennedy simply gave a King's command as to their interests without consulting with them.

3. Full recognition and full status would mean that one of the parents has to be a father and the other a mother. Because there is no substitute for the vital component for children of "father" or "mother". A man with an asshole playing "mother" and a woman with a strapon penis playing "father" will never fool children; and never fill the void gay marriage creates in their lives 100% of the time, for the duration of their entire lives. This is especially detrimental when that void is no mother in a home with daughters or no father in a home with sons.

 

[Syriusly]

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

OK, then it gets even worse for Kennedy's not thinking his words through. He has:


2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?".

So why don't you think that the voice of those children is important?

Why do you want harm to come to these children?

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Which reaffirms my point in #1 and the unfortunate fact that since marriage is a contract and he admits they are part of it in shares (implied & expressed now), THEY HAD NO REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR UNIQUE INTERESTS IN THE REVISION KENNEDY ET AL MADE AT THE HEARING FOR OBERGEFELL. No guardian ad litum was present to weigh in for them. Kennedy simply gave a King's command as to their interests without consulting with them.

#1 Horseshit. Another out of context quote. Kennedy was talking about the voice of children of same sex couple that wanted their parents (same-sex couple) to be able to marry. Here is the fill paragraph:

I think... that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

Full transcript of Supreme Court oral arguments on California Prop. 8 gay marriage case - The Washington Post​

#2 If you think none of the people in their briefs talked about children (both for and against same-sex marriage) you are - to put it kindly - uninformed about the legal process:

Nov 14 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 15, 2014)
Dec 8 2014 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.
Dec 12 2014 Brief of respondent Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health filed.
Dec 15 2014 Brief amicus curiae of Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2014 Brief amici curiae of Colage; Equality Federation, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2014 Brief amici curiae of 76 Scholars of Marriage filed. VIDED.
Dec 19 2014 Letter from counsel for petitioners dated December 19, 2014, received waiving 14-day waiting period pursuant to Rule 15.5.
Dec 21 2014 Reply of petitioners James Obergefell, et al. filed.
Dec 23 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.
Jan 12 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.
Jan 16 2015 Petition GRANTED The petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 14-562, No. 14-571, and No. 14-574 are granted. The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2. The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015. VIDED
Jan 26 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Steve Beshear, et al., in No. 14-574. VIDED
Jan 26 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al., in No. 14-571. VIDED
Feb 4 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Haslam, et al., in No. 14-562. VIDED
Feb 12 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Hodges, et al., in No. 14-556. VIDED
Feb 27 2015 Joint appendix for No. 14-556, 14-562 & 14-574 filed (2 volumes). VIDED.
Feb 27 2015 Brief of petitioners James Obergefell, et al. filed.
Feb 27 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The County of Cuyahoga, Ohio filed.
Feb 27 2015 Brief amici curiae of Mae Kuykendall, David Upham and Michael Worley in support of neither party and urging affirmance on question 1 filed. VIDED.
Mar 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Langley Hill Friends Meeting, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic filed. VIDED.
Mar 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Outserve-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Hawaii filed. VIDED.
Mar 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Indiana University filed. VIDED.
Mar 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of BiLaw filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Cleveland Choral Arts Association Inc. a/k/a The North Coast Men's Chorus filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amici curiae of Elected Officials and Former Officeholders of Michigan, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amici curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amici curiae of Equality Ohio, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Professor W. Burlette Carter in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Mar 4 2015 Brief amici curiae of California Council of Churches, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of Conflict of Law Scholars filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of Kenneth B. Mehlman, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The American Humanist Association and Center for Inquiry filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Organization of American Historians filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Citizens United for the Individual Freedom to Define Marriage in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of 379 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance: State Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender Equality filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of GLMA, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Virginia filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children filed. VIDED.
Mar 5 2015 Brief amicus curiae of National Family Civil Rights Center filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 6 2015 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of The Human Rights Campaign and 207,551 Americans filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Appendix of The Human Rights Campaign and 207,551 Americans filed. (10 Volumes) VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Kristin M. Perry, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of PFLAG, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Conflict of Laws and Family Law Professors filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of The Donaldson Adoption Institute, et al. filed.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Liberty Education Forum filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of American Public Health Association, and Whitman-Walker Health filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Lawrence J. Korb, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of 167 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and 44 U.S. Senators filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders, and Organizations filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Legal Services NYC filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars Stephen Clark, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Family Law Scholars filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Freedom to Marry filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of John K. Olson filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Equality USA filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of LGBT Student Organizations at Undergraduate, Graduate, and Professional Schools filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Minnesota filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Garden State Equality filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of 226 U.S. Mayors, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of The General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, et al. in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Professors Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Campaign for Southern Equality and Equality Federation filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Proposal to lodge excerpts of original, declassified documents, from counsel for amicus curiae The Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. VIDE
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Douglas Laycock, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Human Rights Watch and The New York City Bar Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Historians of Marriage and the American Historical Association filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Ninety-Two Plaintiffs in Marriage Cases in Alabama, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Ashutosh Bhagwat, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Carlos A. Ball, Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers University, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Experiential Learning Lab at New York University School of Law filed. VIDED.
Mar 6 2015 Brief amici curiae of Chris Kluwe, et al. filed.
Mar 16 2015 CIRCULATED.
Mar 17 2015 Record requested from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
Mar 17 2015 Joint letter of argument proposal from counsel for the petitioners. VIDED
Mar 17 2015 Joint letter of argument proposal from counsel for the respondents. VIDED
Mar 17 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Robert J. Bentley, Governor of Alabama filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 18 2015 Record received from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic.
Mar 18 2015 Record from U.S.D.C. Southern Dist. of Ohio is electronic and located on PACER.
Mar 26 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 26 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief of respondents Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amici curiae of Dawn Stefanowicz and Denise Shick filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amici curiae of Heather Barwick and Katy Faust filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amicus curiae of State of South Carolina filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2015 Brief amici curiae of Robert Oscar Lopez and B.N. Klein filed. VIDED.(Distributed)
Mar 30 2015 Brief amici curiae of 54 International and Comparative Law Experts from 27 Countries filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 30 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, Inc., A/K/A The Family Foundation filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 30 2015 Brief amici curiae of The Ruth Institute and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 30 2015 Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Values Coalition, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2015 Supplemental joint letter of argument proposal from counsel for the petitioners. VIDED
Mar 31 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Lary S. Larson filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2015 Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org Education Fund filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2015 Brief amici curiae of Organizations That Promote Biological Parenting filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 31 2015 Brief amici curiae of Liberty Scholars and the Saint Thomas More Society of Dallas filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Originalism filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Gays & Ex-Gays filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Legislators and Scholars of Full Faith and Credit filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amicus curiae of David A. Robinson filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Public Affairs Campaign and Opinion Expert Frank Schubert, et al. filed. VIDED.
Apr 1 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Algirdas M. Liepas filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 1 2015 Brief amicus curiae of National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of American College of Pediatricians, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of 100 Scholars of Marriage filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Tri Valley Law, P.C. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Organizations and Scholars of Gender-Diverse Parenting filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Catholic Answers filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of 47 Scholars filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Welfare of Women, Children, and Underprivileged Populations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Major Religious Organizations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Leaders of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations, Public Speakers, and Scholars Concerned About Free Speech filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amicus curiae of The Committee for Justice filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Brief amici curiae of Louisiana, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 2 2015 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Theodore Coates. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Upon consideration of the March 17 and March 31, 2015, letters from counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, the following order of argument is adopted. On Question 1 the time is allocated as follows: 30 minutes for one advocate on behalf of the petitioners, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 45 minutes for one advocate on behalf of the respondents. On Question 2 the time is allocated as follows: 30 minutes for one advocate on behalf of the petitioners, and 30 minutes for one advocate on behalf of the respondents. VIDED
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Texas Eagle Forum and Steven F. Hotze, M.D. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Fertility and Marriage filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Richard A. Lawrence filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Mike Huckabee Policy Solutions and, Family Research Institute filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the U.S., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of State of Alabama filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Earl M. Maltz, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Jason Feliciano and Seventeen Pastors filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of International Conference of Evangelical Endorsers filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Lighted Candle Society filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of 57 Members of U.S. Congress filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Jon Simmons filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Texas Values filed. VIDED.(Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Dr. Judith Reisman, and Liberty Center for Child Protection filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amici curiae of Same-Sex Attracted Men and their Wives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Agudath Israel of America filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 17 2015 Reply of petitioners James Obergefell, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 28 2015 Argued. For petitioners on Question 1: Mary L. Bonauto, Boston, Mass.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents on Question 1: John J. Bursch, Special Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, Mich. For petitioners on Question 2: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, D. C. For respondents on Question 2: Joseph F. Whalen, Associate Solicitor General, Nashville, Tenn.
May 4 2015 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Theodore Coates DENIED. VIDED.
May 21 2015 Request for recusal received from amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law. VIDED
Jun 26 2015 Judgment REVERSED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J. filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. VIDED
Jul 28 2015 JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Search - Supreme Court of the United States​

>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

OK, then it gets even worse for Kennedy's not thinking his words through. He has:

1. Established children derive benefits from the marriage contract and because of them, something needs to be done about it. Which is the exact same thing as saying "they have a share in the marriage contract".

2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Which reaffirms my point in #1 and the unfortunate fact that since marriage is a contract and he admits they are part of it in shares (implied & expressed now), THEY HAD NO REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR UNIQUE INTERESTS IN THE REVISION KENNEDY ET AL MADE AT THE HEARING FOR OBERGEFELL. No guardian ad litum was present to weigh in for them. Kennedy simply gave a King's command as to their interests without consulting with them.

3. Full recognition and full status would mean that one of the parents has to be a father and the other a mother. Because there is no substitute for the vital component for children of "father" or "mother". A man with an asshole playing "mother" and a woman with a strapon penis playing "father" will never fool children; and never fill the void gay marriage creates in their lives 100% of the time, for the duration of their entire lives. This is especially detrimental when that void is no mother in a home with daughters or no father in a home with sons.

1. Getting benefits because of someone else's contract does not make you party to that contract. You have been given multiple examples of this.

2. See 1.

3. Your dislike of homosexual relationships does not carry the force of law.

You don't like gays, you don't like same sex marriages, you don't think same sex couples should have children. None of that changes the laws of the United States nor the court rulings about how Constitutional protections apply to same sex couples. Your arguments are based on how you feel, not what the law or courts say. Instead, you attempt to force your opinions to fit with court rulings even though they do not. You have been doing this for years. It has changed nothing. You might be happier to learn to accept the truth of that.

 

[Silhouette]

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

OK, then it gets even worse for Kennedy's not thinking his words through. He has:

1. Established children derive benefits from the marriage contract and because of them, something needs to be done about it. Which is the exact same thing as saying "they have a share in the marriage contract".

2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Which reaffirms my point in #1 and the unfortunate fact that since marriage is a contract and he admits they are part of it in shares (implied & expressed now), THEY HAD NO REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR UNIQUE INTERESTS IN THE REVISION KENNEDY ET AL MADE AT THE HEARING FOR OBERGEFELL. No guardian ad litum was present to weigh in for them. Kennedy simply gave a King's command as to their interests without consulting with them.

3. Full recognition and full status would mean that one of the parents has to be a father and the other a mother. Because there is no substitute for the vital component for children of "father" or "mother". A man with an asshole playing "mother" and a woman with a strapon penis playing "father" will never fool children; and never fill the void gay marriage creates in their lives 100% of the time, for the duration of their entire lives. This is especially detrimental when that void is no mother in a home with daughters or no father in a home with sons.

1. Getting benefits because of someone else's contract does not make you party to that contract. You have been given multiple examples of this.....2. See 1.....3. Your dislike of homosexual relationships does not carry the force of law.

You don't like gays, you don't like same sex marriages, you don't think same sex couples should have children. None of that changes the laws of the United States nor the court rulings about how Constitutional protections apply to same sex couples. Your arguments are based on how you feel, not what the law or courts say. Instead, you attempt to force your opinions to fit with court rulings even though they do not. You have been doing this for years. It has changed nothing. You might be happier to learn to accept the truth of that.

As anyone here will tell you, I had a gay friend who died of AIDS. It's because of him and how he became gay is one of the main reasons why I post how I do; to expose the truth in honor of his memory. So doing, I might save a few lives of kids thinking it would be cool to not get therapy or to imprint themselves in such a way as to make it a virtual certainty they will die early from AIDS.

But back to the topic. Kennedy said children are part of marriage in that they derive a share of the benefits of it. He said it. Cat's out of the bag as they say. So saying, he edified that they are implicit and expressed parties to the marriage contract.

Then he went on to eliminate the chief benefit they had from the marriage contract (a mother and father), without their having representation at that revision Hearing. Which is illegal according to the Doctrine of Infants and contract law. You cannot create a void in a child's life, setting him or her at a disadvantage to his or her peers by a binding contractual term! Fer crissakes.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" s.

Why don't you think those children are important in that case Silhouette?

Why don't you think that preventing harm to the children of gay couples is important?

More importantly- why do you advocate policies you know would harm those children?

 

[Silhouette]

[Q
2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" s.

Why don't you think those children are important in that case Silhouette?

Why don't you think that preventing harm to the children of gay couples is important?

More importantly- why do you advocate policies you know would harm those children?

There is no harm to children of gays more scathing than them seeking to bind them via contract away from either a mother or father for life. Why don' tyou think that preventing harm to the children caught up in gay lifestyles is important? We don't set standards based on diversions that harm children. We set contractual standards especially based on what is best for them or at least adequate. Creating a void for children for life (a detriment) of either a mother or father as a term of a contract is not legal to do.

It is a 100% undeniable FACT that a gay marriage contract legally strips children involved of either a father or mother for life. There is not one person who would argue differently because there is no argument to stark, cold reality like "two men do not include a mother" or "two women do not include a father".

 

[Montrovant]

It is a 100% undeniable FACT that a gay marriage contract legally strips children involved of either a father or mother for life. There is not one person who would argue differently because there is no argument to stark, cold reality like "two men do not include a mother" or "two women do not include a father".

That is not a fact. It is entirely possible for a same sex couple to have a child and for that child to have opposite sex parents in their lives, even if that is not the norm. Married couples get divorced all the time, so the child of a same sex couple is not necessarily going to have the same married parents for life. I doubt the children of same sex couples usually have opposite sex parents that are either alive or part of their lives, so they aren't being stripped of anything; one must have something before one can be stripped of it. You shouldn't toss out things as FACTS when they aren't.

 

[Silhouette]

It is a 100% undeniable FACT that a gay marriage contract legally strips children involved of either a father or mother for life. There is not one person who would argue differently because there is no argument to stark, cold reality like "two men do not include a mother" or "two women do not include a father".

That is not a fact. It is entirely possible for a same sex couple to have a child and for that child to have opposite sex parents in their lives, even if that is not the norm. Married couples get divorced all the time, so the child of a same sex couple is not necessarily going to have the same married parents for life. I doubt the children of same sex couples usually have opposite sex parents that are either alive or part of their lives, so they aren't being stripped of anything; one must have something before one can be stripped of it. You shouldn't toss out things as FACTS when they aren't.

But that isn't 1. The norm or 2. Part of the marriage contract.

You're aware by now that we are discussing the terms of a contract, right?

 

[Montrovant]

It is a 100% undeniable FACT that a gay marriage contract legally strips children involved of either a father or mother for life. There is not one person who would argue differently because there is no argument to stark, cold reality like "two men do not include a mother" or "two women do not include a father".

That is not a fact. It is entirely possible for a same sex couple to have a child and for that child to have opposite sex parents in their lives, even if that is not the norm. Married couples get divorced all the time, so the child of a same sex couple is not necessarily going to have the same married parents for life. I doubt the children of same sex couples usually have opposite sex parents that are either alive or part of their lives, so they aren't being stripped of anything; one must have something before one can be stripped of it. You shouldn't toss out things as FACTS when they aren't.

But that isn't 1. The norm or 2. Part of the marriage contract.

You're aware by now that we are discussing the terms of a contract, right?

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract, yet you consistently bring it up. Oh, I'm sorry, were we discussing the actual terms of marriage contracts or your imagination?

 

[Silhouette]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

 

[Montrovant]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

Again, not for life. Divorce, death, or a relationship with the biological father/mother are all possibilities. It's certainly also possible that such a child would not have a father or mother in their life, but you continue to state things as fact which are not. You know, like saying children are parties to the marriage contract?